Talk:Urinary system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Original version of this article was taken from NIH Publication No. 02-3195, a public domain resource which can be found at —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2002

The link is broken. I removed the link from the article. (Probably should be added as a source, though.) // Habj 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


The sections Who can help me with a urinary problem? and Points to remember do not appear to be particularly encyclopedic, but instead seem to be something that one would expect to be found at the source that this was taken from. I'd suggest renaming and re-writing the first section to make it more encyclopedic, and deleting the second section entirely. Asbestos | Talk 12:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole article needs editing to remove "you". Encyclopedia articles do not directly address their readers. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have finally decided to get rid of the dumbing down and preaching. We now have something that closer resembles an encyclopedia article. JFW | T@lk 07:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I bet my soap is bigger than yours, and my beans don't look like kidney beans. Jidanni 04:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference on bean goes straight to the bean page, and kidney beans in particular. I'm sure readers don't need to be told that kidneys are "kidney bean" shaped and I'm unsure what other comparison would be fair. Readers can compare beans by reading that page. Also, I wonder if the "size of a bar of soap" is even necessary, insofar as there is also a reference to the kidney page. If you prefer why don't you change it to "smooth encapsulated organs describing a concave arc around 10 centimeters long". I don't care except that it is a little prolix. Markjohndaley 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm not doubting this article, I'm just wondering where this info came from.Cameron Nedland 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that alot of it is unstructured and confused. I am thinking of doing a rewrite especially of the pathology section. I'll have to get my exam notes re-written. I think a pre-renal, renal, post renal, sort of anatomical-clinical breakdown, and then infectious, neoplastic, inflammatory, vascular, structural/fgunctional in each section. In fact My group gave a talk for a Grand rounds this year, I may be able to use that. I'm especially dissatisfied with the cancer stuff. It just says the names of organs and tacks on "cancer". Someone in this place has my pathology book.. Markjohndaley 14:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
done. didn't make it too technical. just gave examples. lots of related wiki pages

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjohndaley (talkcontribs) 18:45, 7 May 2007‎ (UTC)

Proposed Merge[edit]

In various sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, the excretory and urinary systems are indeed the same system. If a merge follows, the name should be changed to Excretory system as this is the proper name. --I Are Scientists 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely dispute this. This topic is a medical one and, for instance, the 33rd edition of Gray's Anatomy calls it the Urogenital system (which would be a better name if a change was warranted). Bern and Levy, Physiology 5th edition, refers to the urinary tract (pg 630). Excretory system is an ambiguous lay term (like using the term 'church' instead of the catholic 'mass').Markjohndaley 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gotta say I'm with MarkDaley here - he's hit the nail right on the head with this point --leopheard 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even paying you that much. Hey I've been helping with endocrine system if you wanna lend a hand too. Markjohndaley 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Get out yer books.. need to reference this thing[edit]

It's not really a system if its not systematic. Some combined anatomy/physiology books will have enough detail to put references to the quotes and facts, most of the science is over 30 years old so almost anyone has something they can use to reference this.. I myself am going to bed. (dont be fooled the 16:4X really means 02:47 around here.)Markjohndaley 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)